祝勝歌の論述法 : ピンダロス『ピュティア第二歌』67行χαιρε以下について

スポンサーリンク

概要

• 論文の詳細を見る

• With the perspective given by Bundy, most of the difficulties of the Second Pythian are being solved. But the problem of line 67 still remains to be examined. The ode seems to end here, the final triad being an 'appendix' or 'supplement' which cannot be tied to the themes of argument in its preceding part. This paper assumes that "the establishing of the argument throughout the ode is the minimum prerequisite for an interpretation of an ode" (Slater, CJ 72[1977], 199). The purpose of this paper is to establish the argument in the final triad of the Second Pythian, especially around the fissure of line 67. The problem of 67 is obvious. Both the context and the wording seem to suggest the end of the ode. A large ring-composition of praise-myth-praise has just closed, and χαιρε means 'farewell'. Should not the ode end here? This expectation, however, is not justified. Direct praise does not suggest the end of an ode. Besides P. 2, there are 25 odes that have a myth in their centre. Seven of them lack any direct praise in the post-myth part. In at least 8 odes (O. 6, 8, 9; P. 8, 10, 11; N. 9; I. 1) of the remaining 18, the first direct praise after the myth ends leaving more than one epode/strophe, allowing a thematic transition. A transition is also indicated by χαιρε. In hymns χαιρε is not 'farewell' but 'delight in these'. By affirming the establishment of the χαρι&b.sigmav;-relationship with a god and requesting reciprocal good-will, the singer can now turn to other themes, without arousing the god's anger. This structure is seen in I. 1. 32, where χαιρετε indicates a transition from the hymnal praise to the theme preceding it, with a digressional framing. In P. 2. 67, χαιρε indicates a transition from the direct praise of the victor, followed by the statement of the beauty of the song, which establishes the χαρι&b.sigmav;-srelationship. Not an end, therefore, but a transition is prepared at 67-71. How then is the transition made? We must understand the significance of 72, almost a variation of γνωθι σεαυτον, and the clue must be in what is said before the direct praise, which is a digression. (It may seem strange to consider the direct praise, the most important part of the epinician argument, as a digression. But this structure has parallels. In P. 10. 53-63 the direct praise is framed with maxims of αλλοτε αλλον, by varying their implications to advance the argument ; cf. also P. 8. 73-97, N. 11. 13-32, /. 2. 30-45.) In 49-61, three points must be noted. First, the break-off in 52-56 is made up of the denial of κακαγορια, which is emphasized in 58-60. Second, the θαυμα-moWi which brought about the break-off (49-52) consists in the affirmation of the greatness of gods, but at this point there seems to be no logical relation between this affirmation and the denial of κακαγορια. Third, it is stated that human success and failure are effectuated as a god pleases (51-52). This third point makes clear the meaning of 72 γενοι', οιο&b.sigmav; εσσι μαθων : this phrase composes a maxim of σωφροσυνη, which resumes the theme of 51-52. The second-person does not refer to Hieron : it is indefinite (this shift of reference is supported by (1)the asyndeton, (2)the phrase being a maxim, (3)the closure of the digressional framing, and (4)the parallel in P. 1. 81-92). The final triad develops around these three points. In 72-78 the theme of σωφροσυνη goes to the background and that of κακαγορια comes to the front. The practice, danger and inefficacy of κακαγορια are depicted with metaphors. But its inefficacy is not gained without effort : lines 79-88 state what must be done in order to make κακαγορια ineffectual. The practice of κακαγορια is depicted with another metaphor, this time together with the opposite practice of good citizens. And by referring to common morals, κακαγορια becomes the opposite of δικη : it is necessary to be ευθυγλωσσο&b.sigmav;, to praise and blame accordingly. Lines 88-96 finally clarify the relation between gods and κακαγορια : with the theme of σωφροσυνη resumed again, κακαγορια is now shown as a υβρι&b.sigmav; against gods. Line 96 is a common phrase which has parallels, but it also sums up the argument of the ode : 'I'(first-person indefinite) shall avoid xaxayopia, 'I' shall praise and blame accordingly. The conclusion of this paper is : the final triad of the Second Pythian is tied to the themes of the argument of the ode, and line 67 does not suggest the end of the ode. χαιρε indicates the end of the direct praise, and lines 7296 resume and develop the themes before this digression, i.e. the problem of κακαγορια, its relation to gods, and the χρεο&b.sigmav; of praise.

• 日本西洋古典学会の論文
• 1999-03-23

著者

• 小池 登

  東京大学

関連論文

• 書評 B.K. Braswell, A Commemtary on Pindar Nemean Nine
• J. Diggle ed., Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta Selecta (Oxford Classical Texts)., Pp.x+182, Oxford UP, 1997.
• 祝勝歌の論述法 : ピンダロス『ピュティア第二歌』67行χαιρε以下について

スポンサーリンク